442 
ALLOPATHY V. HOMOEOPATHY. 
mentions, that the German sulphureous waters frequently 
produce a rash on the skins of visitors who drink them. 
The frequent infriction of sulphur will certainly produce 
irritation and eruption on the delicate human skin ; and this, 
argue the homoeopathists, is the explanation of its efficacy in 
removing itch, and such other cutaneous affections. But if 
this, as homoeopathists assert*, be the true source of its 
curative value, it is but fair to infer that other substances, 
such as mustard, sand, and all substances capable of pro- 
ducing similar irritation and eruption, should, like sulphur, 
be possessed of similar efficacy in the cure of skin diseases. 
This is surely enough to scatter to the winds Mr. Haycock’s 
hypothesis regarding the action of sulphur. Nor is it 
difficult to substitute a somewhat more rational explana- 
tion. Sulphur operates chiefly as a stimulant, and in virtue 
of this property produces, according as it is used, irritation 
of the skin, activity of the mucous surfaces, or destruction of 
the acarus scabiei — the insect whose presence in the skin 
constitutes the remarkable peculiarity of itch. In this, as in 
all other cases, those curative actions which are attempted to 
be explained by homoeopathy, can always be more simply and 
logically explained by rational medicine. 
Turning from sulphur, we arrive at a very indefinite 
description of thick wind, which is oracularly affirmed “ to 
depend upon nervous debility, and upon the existence of a 
low inflammatory action within the mucous tissue of the 
larynx, trachea, and bronchi.” Arsenic and iodine are con- 
sidered effectual remedies. Of the latter it is further stated? 
that its “ physiological action is thoroughly homoeopathic, ’’ 
because, forsooth, it produces in the human subject “dyspnoea, 
hoarseness, and fatal results !” Remarkable coincidence, 
certainly, that iodine, which irritates all the mucous surfaces, 
should actually, when swallowed, irritate the throat. But 
why is the use of iodine so specially confined to this affection 
of the throat ; why is this little group of throat symptoms 
which it occasionally develops, to be seized upon as the key to 
its exclusive use in thick wind. It is said to produce “ hoarse- 
ness,” “ sore throat,” and “ acute dyspnoea,” and must 
surely, therefore, on homoeopathic principles, be most valua- 
ble for the cure of catarrh, laryngitis, and bronchitis. Yet it 
does not appear to be used in these affections, although 
Hahnemann has distinctly said, that there should be “as 
much similarity as possible ” between the symptoms of the 
disease and those produced by the remedy. It is held to be 
useful where there is but a forced and distant similarity ; it 
is useless where the similarity is clear and close. Further, 
